This thesis considers how judges sentence. It explores and critically analyses judicial decision making in sentencing along with judicial perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the sentencing process. Building upon a thorough review of recent scholarship on judicial decision making and sentencing, and incorporating a comparative study of domestic and Commonwealth sentencing jurisprudence, the thesis comprises the first empirical study of judicial sentencing in Scotland in a decade. The thesis reports the results of an interview-based study with 25 serving Scottish judges. In particular it investigates judicial views on the importance of judicial discretion; the pursuit of individualised justice; the aims and purposes of sentencing; the role of personal mitigation, leniency and mercy; the use of guidelines, and whether consistency in sentencing is either achievable or desirable. The empirical findings reveal that, in order to comply with the demands of justice, the majority of Scottish judges consider the process of sentencing to be an adjudicative balancing of the relevant facts in every case – a delicate art based on competence, experience and expertise which is best achieved through a process of “instinctive synthesis”. This means that sentencing must remain an essentially discretionary process structured by appellate guidance. Through an integration of the concept of equity as particularised justice, the Aristotelian concept of phronesis (or “practical wisdom”) and appellate courts’ focus on the instinctive synthesis, the thesis argues that judicial sentencing methodology – to the extent that it relies on intuition and experience – is best viewed in terms of a phronetic synthesis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the individual case. The sentencing task is thus conceptualised as a form of case-orientated, concrete and intuitive decision making that seeks individualisation through judicial recognition of the profoundly contextualised nature of the process.

This dissertation describes and analyzes the work of the Supreme Court of Canada, emphasizing its internal environment and processes, while situating the institution in its broader governmental and societal context. In addition, it offers an assessment of the behavioural and rational choice models of judicial decision making, which tend to portray judges as primarily motivated by their ideologically-based policy preferences. The dissertation adopts a historical institutionalist approach to demonstrate that judicial decision making is far more complex than is depicted by the dominant approaches within the political science literature. Drawing extensively on 28 research interviews with current and former justices, former law clerks and other staff members, the analysis traces the development of the Court into a full-fledged policy-making institution, particularly under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This analysis presents new empirical evidence regarding not only the various stages of the Court’s decision-making process but the justices’ views on a host of considerations ranging from questions of collegiality (how the justices should work together) to their involvement in controversial and complex social policy matters and their relationship with the other branches of government. These insights are important because they increase our understanding of how the Court operates as one of the country’s more important policy-making institutions. The findings have significant implications for debates over judicial activism and the relationship between courts and the other branches of government when dealing with the Charter. The project also concludes that the justices’ role perceptions – the ideas, norms and rules that govern their role as judges and that of the institution – both shape and constrain their decision making behaviour. Understanding judicial behaviour with a focus on role perceptions allows for bridge-building between the competing explanations of judicial decision making and for theory-building in the broader judicial politics literature. / Thesis (Ph.D, Political Studies) -- Queen's University, 2009-11-11 13:06:59.159

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing “junk” science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts’ CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts’ credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise. Legal professionals’ (N = 150) and undergraduate students’ (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants’ decision making processes. Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.

As courts in separation-of-powers systems are said to have the power of neither the purse nor the sword, their institutional legitimacy is essential for ensuring compliance with their decisions. While institutional legitimacy has been examined in-depth for national high courts, the legitimacy of sub-national courts has been overlooked. In this dissertation I develop a new measure of court-level institutional legitimacy for state high courts. I use multilevel regression and poststratification to create state-level measures from individual-level survey results. In this dissertation, I develop a theory of review and delegation by state high courts. I argue that these courts work toward two main goals: implementing their policy preferences and maintaining the legitimacy of their institution. I argue for a two-stage process that considers whether or not the court will decide on the constitutionality of a statute in the first stage and whether they will overturn the statute and delegate policy control back to the other branches of government in the second. Relying on the literatures on both institutional legitimacy and political delegation, I suggest that courts may delegate policy control back to the other branches of government by specifically stating this in their opinion. Finally, I examine the conditions under which a state high court will delegate to either the state legislature or the executive branch. Overall, I find that legitimacy is important when considering state high court decision-making; and it must be considered along with political context and institutional rules as one of the central motivations for state high courts in separation of powers theories.

abstract: Rates of domestic violence (DV) gun homicide in Arizona consistently exceed the national average (Everytown, 2015). For perpetrators, firearms continue to be their primary weapon of choice in DV homicides (Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, 2015). In Arizona, civil DV protection orders (POs) help reduce the growing rates of gun homicide through firearm removal provisions. Questioning how firearms shape judicial decision-making, this thesis contributes to existing literature on firearms and DV by exploring how judges come to interpret findings of credible threat and which factors are associated with judicial decisions to grant firearm removal pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3601. This thesis reveals how courts navigate competing concerns around victim safety and gun rights. Secondary qualitative and quantitative data collected as part of Dr. Alesha Durfee’s National Institute of Justice Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships Grant “Investigating the Impacts of Institutional and Contextual Factors on Protection Order Decision-Making” (Dr. Alesha Durfee, PI; Mesa Municipal Court and National Center for State Courts, co-PIs) (2015-IJ-CX-0013) are analyzed in this thesis. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Women and Gender Studies 2017

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this research is to understand how Trial Court Judges in state and city courts make decisions in domestic violence cases. The researcher examined the relationship between legal (e.g., evidence) and extra-legal factors (e.g., preconceived biases and behaviors related to judicial decision-making) using a qualitative research design. A case study of multiple locations in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes was used whereby a purposive sample of 17 current civil, municipal, and criminal court judges were interviewed. Judicial decision-making strategies were studied via face-to-face interviews, courtroom observations, and content analysis of courtroom communications (e.g., speech, written text, interviews, images, etc.). The researcher discusses future applications of the study as well as the application of findings to assist in exploring judicial decision-making processes. This qualitative research may be beneficial to policy planners, practitioners, and sociologists in gaining insight into the complexity of the judges’ decision-making processes.

<p>Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, fewer than 50 Black judges had been elected or appointed to the judiciary. As of August 2015, there are over 1,000 Black state and federal judges. As the number of black judges has increased, one question arises: have American courts been altered purely by this substantial increase? One expectation—and, at times, a prediction—behind the increased descriptive representation of Black judges is that their mere presence would alter the judiciary. It was supposed that these judges would substantively represent Black interests in the decisions they made. In other words, it was suspected, and predicted, that Blacks in the judiciary would enhance equality and justice by being aware of, responsive to, and advocating for African Americans. This theory about the likely role of Black judges derives from theoretical work on political representation and racial group consciousness, and empirical studies of Black elite behavior in other political institutions.</p><p>Despite such predictions, there is no corresponding scholarly consensus regarding whether Black judges possess a racial group consciousness and have racially distinctive judicial behavior. Therefore, the theory undergirding the demand for increased diversification, as a means to transform the judiciary, remains unsubstantiated. This is precisely where this project, “They’re There, Now What?: The Identities, Behavior, and Perceptions of Black Judges,” seeks to intervene in and explore, if not settle, the matter of whether black judges possess a racial group consciousness and exhibit racially-distinctive judicial behavior. It addresses a set of interrelated questions relevant to understanding whether we can view Black judges as representatives in ways that are similar to how we view other Black political officials. I examine these questions using a multi-method approach. For my analyses, I draw on diverse materials: the published biographies of every Black judge appointed to the federal bench, a survey experiment with a nationally-representative adult sample, and semi-structured interviews with 30 Black judges.</p><p>This research, which engages with scholarship on representation, group consciousness, judicial behavior, and candidate perceptions, offers new insights into the lives, perceptions, and behavior of Black judges, as well as the manifestations of Black substantive representation in the judiciary. My dissertation argues that, despite the general reluctance to use the term “representation” when referring to judges, we can consider Black judges as representatives. Black judges behave as substantive representatives by (1) sharing and understanding the experience, history, and perspectives of Black Americans, (2) challenging language, persons, policies, and laws they feel negatively affect, or violate the rights and liberties of, African Americans, (3) respecting African American litigants, and (4) ensuring the rights of African Americans are protected and the needs of black Americans are being met. </p><p>Only through research that considers the perspectives, identities, perceptions, and behavior of Black judges will we arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the importance of racial diversity in the courts. As this project finds, a link between descriptive representation and substantive representation can, and frequently does exist within the judicial context. Such a link is significant given that Blacks’ liberty and justice through the American legal system continues to be subject to those who exercise judicial power. This dissertation has implications for the discourse surrounding the need for increased descriptive and substantive representation of Blacks in the judiciary, and the factors that affect representation in the justice system.</p> / Dissertation